[9:56] Mark Combellack: Agenda:
- Roll Call
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=sca-j
- Appointment of scribe. List attached below
- Agenda bashing
- Approval of minutes from Dec 5
Issue Status:
Open: 57
1. Review action items:
Action Items that I believe are done:
2008-11-11-4:Dave to draft email to raise an objection to TC admin decision (regarding package name - JAVA-6)
2008-11-11-6:SimonN to write up a proposal outlining spec changes needed to not support message correlation on call backs for JAVA-25
2008-11-11-9:Mark to write up state diagram on blackboard for JAVA-65 from November F2F
2008-11-11-19: Dave to come up with proper words for JAVA-30 based on Mike's proposal at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200807/msg00068.html
Action Items that I believe are still to be done:
2008-07-15-2:Vladimir to produce a proposal for JAVA-2
2008-10-06-1:Editors to fix all the other remaining ed issues for WD04 pointed out by Mark, SimonN and Vamsi
2008-10-06-2:Anish - Work with OASIS Staff to get CD01 published
2008-10-13-2:Editors to update references to the [ASSEMBLY] style
2008-10-20-1:Simon to write new proposal with textual changes for JAVA-76
2008-11-11-1:Simon to raise 3 issues for each C&I wrt what happens if the annotation rules are not followed (SCA Runtime MUST NOT deploy the component)
2008-11-11-3:Simon to provide proposal for JAVA-6
2008-11-11-5:MikeE and Dave to write up a proposal to JAVA-1 covering the options decided at the Nov F2F
2008-11-11-7:Mark to propose a delta to Simon's action (2008-11-11-6) on JAVA-25 to add support for message correlation on call backs
2008-11-11-8:SimonN to write spec change proposal to resolve JAVA-19 as directed at the Nov F2F
2008-11-11-12:Mark to write proposal for JAVA-46 drawing inspiration from the chat log of day 2 of the November F2F
2008-11-11-13:Dave to work on proposal for JAVA-60
2008-11-11-15:SimonN to write proposal to simplify stateful implementation mechanism to replace conversations (JAVA-21)
2008-11-11-21: Mark, Jim and Mike to describe their use cases for JAVA-30
2008-11-11-22:Mark to draw up some wording for Direction 1 (as discussed at the November F2F) for JAVA-62
2008-11-11-23: Mark (and others prepared to help) to investigate the WorkManager JEE spec and determine its applicability to SCA for JAVA-62
2008-11-11-26:SimonN to figure out how JAXB converts Java types into either XML schema types of global elements or possibly both
2008-11-11-27:SimonN to raise issue on brain-damaged definition of @Service annotation (see comments in Nov F2F raw chat log)
2008-11-11-31:Martin to consider what does compliance mean (to the SCA-J specs)
2008-11-11-32:Martin to raise with the liaison committee what does compliance to the SCA specs mean
2008-11-11-33:Simon to write up proposal for JAVA-67 (not in previous minutes but Simon is sure he has this action item)
2. Schedule
a. Issue Assignments.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200812/msg00010.html
b. Keeping up with editorial workload.
c. Can we make Feb 23 public review for all 5 specs?
d. Motion: Starting Dec 9, all new issues MUST be accompanied by a proposal that can be voted on.
3. Package name appeal (JAVA-2;)
a. CD01 upload is stalled pending this appeal.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200812/msg00007.html
b. The board expresses confusion. We owe a response.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200812/msg00009.html
4. Accepting New Issues
a. JAVA-85: ejb binding @uri has the wrong schema
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-85
Proposal: Reject this new issue
b. JAVA-109: Property and reference names computed from SCA annotations in web modules not specified explicitly
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-109
c. JAVA-110: Incorrect entry for Servlet filters in table of web artifacts for dependency injection
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-110
d. JAVA-111: @Constructor value attribute should not be optional
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-111
5. Blocking Issue discussion
a. JAVA-55: SCA Java Specifications do not Adequately Define the ComponentType of a Java implementation
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-55
b. JAVA-95: Simplified stateful implementation mechanism to replace conversations
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-95
c. JAVA-25: Callback Simplification
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-25
6. Other Open Issues discussion
a. JAVA-30: "Process" Scope
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-30
proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200812/msg00006.html
b. JAVA-52: RequestContext.getCallbackReference() description inadequate
proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-52
c. JAVA-65: There is no lifecycle defined for SCA Components
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-65
proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-j/200811/msg00095.html
d. JAVA-89: Java EE Spec: Section 7.1.1 & 7.1.2 - should say that the EJB references are optionally made into SCA references
proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-89
e. JAVA-90: Java EE Spec: Section 5.1.1 normative change needs ratifying
proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-90
f. JAVA-99: @property and @reference cannot be final
proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-99
g. JAVA-101: element not fully described in Java CAA specification
proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-101
h. JAVA-102: Need to have a Name parameter on the @Service annotation
proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-102
i. JAVA-103: @Remotable annotation incorrectly marked as optional in Java EE spec
proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-103
j. JAVA-62: Clarify what a Component Implementation can do with threads
proposal: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/JAVA-62
7. AOB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rotating scribe list:
Peter Walker Sun Microsystems (1)
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems (2)
Peter Peshev SAP AG (2)
Ron Barack SAP AG (3)
Michael Beisiegel IBM (3)
Sanjay Patil SAP AG (3)
Vladimir Savchenko SAP AG (1)
Jim Marino Individual (4)
Meeraj Kunnumpurath Individual (1)
Vamsavardhana Chillakuru IBM (2)
Bryan Aupperle IBM (4)
Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation (4)
Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation (4)
Simon Nash Individual (2)
Pradeep Simha TIBCO Software Inc. (5)
Mike Edwards IBM (5)
Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation (6)
Yang Lei IBM (1)
Plamen Pavlov SAP AG (1)
[10:23] Mark Combellack: Agenda update: JAVA-95 now has a proposal
[10:35] Bryan Aupperle: Scribe: Bryan Aupperle
[10:36] Vamsi: Thanks Bryan
[10:39] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: Agenda Bashing
[10:40] Bryan Aupperle: Agenda accepted with addition of Issue 95 discussion
[10:40] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: Action Items
[10:40] Bryan Aupperle: 2008-11-11-4: Dave to draft email to raise an objection to TC admin decision (regarding package name - JAVA-6) - Done
[10:41] Bryan Aupperle: 2008-11-11-6: SimonN to write up a proposal outlining spec changes needed to not support message correlation on call backs for JAVA-25 - Dope
[10:41] Bryan Aupperle: s/Dope/Done/
[10:42] Bryan Aupperle: 2008-11-11-9: Mark to write up state diagram on blackboard for JAVA-65 from November F2F - Done
[10:42] Bryan Aupperle: 2008-11-11-1: Simon to raise 3 issues for each C&I wrt what happens if the annotation rules are not followed (SCA Runtime MUST NOT deploy the component) - Done
[10:43] Bryan Aupperle: 2008-11-11-15: SimonN to write proposal to simplify stateful implementation mechanism to replace conversations (JAVA-21) - Done
[10:43] Bryan Aupperle: All other ongoing
[10:43] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: Schedule
[10:44] Bryan Aupperle: Vamsi has taken Issue 96.
[10:44] Bryan Aupperle: Bryan has take Issue 94
[10:44] Bryan Aupperle: Dave will assign the other three after the call.
[10:45] Bryan Aupperle: Dave requests that everyone have a propoasl for one one item per week.
[10:47] Bryan Aupperle: Topic Editorial work
[10:47] Bryan Aupperle: Biggest concern in Java CAA and Java C&I - Anish is not on the call.
[10:48] Bryan Aupperle: Need to understand current state of editorial work
[10:48] Bryan Aupperle: In future, for each resolved issue, create AI and assign to an editor.
[10:49] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: Call all 5 specs meet Feb. 23 PRD?
[10:50] Bryan Aupperle: Simon thinks so, Dave is not convinced.
[10:50] Bryan Aupperle: Dave suggest putting JEE spec on hold and using Friday Java EE call time for working on remaining specs.
[10:53] Bryan Aupperle: We will miss a number of calls over the holidays so number of calls will be limited.
[10:55] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: we have not done any work on the EJB spec yet.
[10:56] Bryan Aupperle: Motion: Deprioritize JEE spec. until further notice and use Friday call for work on other specs. (Dave, second Mike)
[11:00] Dave Booz marked Martin and Plamen as in attendance
[11:01] Bryan Aupperle: Resolution: Motion passes w/o
[11:02] Bryan Aupperle: Dave to post to list if JEE groupd needs time on Friday to close up current workload.
[11:03] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: Change issue opening rules.
[11:05] Bryan Aupperle: Dave describes concept of requiring proposals when issues are open.
[11:05] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: does this require a fully worked out proposal with ready to go spec text?
[11:07] Bryan Aupperle: Mark: this could lead to the situation where we know we have issues but not having them logged in JIRA?
[11:09] Bryan Aupperle: Mike: Concept is good, having a proposed solution proposal (enough for editors to incorporate) forces raiser to think more when raising an issue.
[11:10] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: technical direction is sufficient if it is clear how to write the spec text form it.
[11:11] Bryan Aupperle: Vamsi: could we defer issues if no proposal?
[11:11] Bryan Aupperle: Dave: That is a possiblity
[11:12] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: We could also defer exiting issues (at least until after February).
[11:13] Bryan Aupperle: Martin: Deferred Issues require a 2/3 majority to reconsider.
[11:14] Dave Booz: Any new issues raised after Dec9 which do not include a proposal are automatically deferred post Feb23 deadline. In order to considered for the Feb23 deadline, new issues MUST include a proposal or statement of direction.
[11:16] Bryan Aupperle: Motion: Text of prior entry as a standing rule (Dave, second Vamsi)
[11:16] Bryan Aupperle: Resolution: Motion passes w/o
[11:17] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: Editorial Status of Java CAA and Java C&I specs.
[11:18] Vamsi: Dave was too quick to record Anish's attendance, so he can't leave the call now without answering
[11:18] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: Not far behind on C&I (few if any recently resolved issues).
[11:19] Bryan Aupperle: Anish: Now work has been done on CAA recently so probably not current. Can find out how far behind it is.
[11:20] Bryan Aupperle: s/Now/No/
[11:21] Bryan Aupperle: AI (Anish) - asses where we are wrt to issues needing application and post to list ASAP
[11:21] Bryan Aupperle: Mike will take charge of C&I spec
[11:22] Vamsi: 'assess' that is...
[11:22] Vamsi: For a minute it got me worried
[11:22] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: CD upload
[11:23] Bryan Aupperle: This is being help up by package name appeal
[11:24] Bryan Aupperle: Discussion of latest response from OASIS
[11:25] anish this is just so insane, i can't figure out why the tc admin would want to have a package name without owning the domain
[11:26] Bryan Aupperle: Conclude that it would be better to consider this an continuation
[11:29] Bryan Aupperle: There are some differences in the list of the people on the appeals that would need to be reconciled.
[11:30] Bryan Aupperle: Simon to propose text as a continuation and send to Dave.
[11:31] Bryan Aupperle: AI (Simon and Dave) Update packaging naming appeal to TAB.
[11:31] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: New Issues
[11:32] Bryan Aupperle: Motion Reject Issue 85 (David, second Simon)
[11:32] Bryan Aupperle: Resolution: Motion passes w/o
[11:33] Bryan Aupperle: Vamsi reviews issue.
[11:35] Vamsi: dropped out of the call since my service provider drops the call after an hour into the call.
[11:35] Vamsi: reconnecting now.
[11:36] Mike Edwards: Isn't it simpler to just require that the @Reference / @Property annotation has a name....
[11:36] Bryan Aupperle: Yang: Proposed rules are different than Java. It would be better if we were consistent with Java.
[11:37] Bryan Aupperle: Simon concurres
[11:37] Bryan Aupperle: s/concurres/concurs/
[11:38] Bryan Aupperle: Motion: Open issue Java-109 (Mike, second Vamsi)
[11:38] Bryan Aupperle: Resolution: motion passes w/o
[11:39] Bryan Aupperle: Vamsi reviews issue
[11:40] Bryan Aupperle: Motion: Open Java-110 (Vamsi, second Mike)
[11:40] Bryan Aupperle: Resolution: motion passes w/o
[11:41] Bryan Aupperle: Motion: resolve Java-110 with proposal in JIRA (Mike, second Vamsi)
[11:41] Bryan Aupperle: Resolution: motion passes w/o
[11:41] Bryan Aupperle: Simon reviews issue.
[11:43] Bryan Aupperle: Vamsi: Whate about constructor with no arguements?
[11:44] Bryan Aupperle: s/Whate/What/
[11:45] Bryan Aupperle: Mike: Could annotate each constructor parameter. This would be unambiguous.
[11:46] Bryan Aupperle: Simon: Then could remove the value attribute
[11:47] Bryan Aupperle: Mark: Could remove @Constructor completely (using only @Reference and @Property and multiple annotated constructors would be an error.
[11:47] Simon Nash: new title for JAVA-111: Constructor name information may not be available
[11:48] Bryan Aupperle: Motion: Open Java-111 with new title in prior entry (Simon, second Vamsi)
[11:48] Bryan Aupperle: Resolution: motion passes w/o
[11:49] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: Blocking Issues
[11:52] anish I have a suggestion for the chair(s), send out a list of issues that would be potentially discussed on a particular call, few days before the call. Now that we have 2 calls a week, this would help folks focus on the issues that would be discussed (and resolved) on the mailing list.
[11:53] Simon Nash: good idea
[11:53] anish i know this will increase the workload on the already busy chairs, but i do think it will help us wrt efficiency
[11:53] Dave Booz: i will post the Friday agenda today
[11:53] Simon Nash: we could do that on the previous call
[11:53] Mark Combellack: Agendas have generally previously been posted Thursday/Friday for the Monday call
[11:53] Simon Nash: decide on each call what we will do on the next one
[11:53] Simon Nash: not a formal agenda
[11:54] Simon Nash: just 2 or 3 main issues to cover
[11:54] anish simon, that sounds like a good idea
[11:58] Bryan Aupperle: Mike reviews starting at line 386
[11:59] Martin C time running out
[12:00] Bryan Aupperle: Topic: AOB
[12:01] anish is this the chicago model?
[12:01] Mike Edwards: chicago??
[12:01] Mike Edwards: cold 'n windy ?